TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:[OT] List behavior From:mlist -at- safenet-inc -dot- com To:techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com Date:Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:16:37 -0500
When faced with the task of deciding what is appropriate content for a
publication, we always exhort each other to "consider the audience".
This list is a publication (ongoing), and the audience is split.
The problem that's recently been articulated (gosh, how often does that
happen) is that:
a) there's too much Off-topic posting (likened to spam)
b) it's not labelled.
Some have agreed with the proportion of Off-topic-ness. (I sense a strong
correlation.)
Some have agreed with what actually _is_ off topic. (I notice a significant
divide.)
Many seem to agree that consistent labelling would make a lot of difference
(in a positive way).
A recurring problem, when you get several thousand people in one place
(metaphorically speaking... er... writing) is that you will necessarily get
a large number of garrulous folk. These'd be the bunch who participate a
lot, but might not curb their natures sufficiently for the other bunch, who
want the list to be a semi-automated reference book - responsive, when
needed, but thoroughly, thoroughly dry.
My bet would be that those two bunches combine to make up less than one
fourth of all members. That's a figure unsupported by more than educated
guesswork, but consider that, if the list still has several thousand
members, only a few hundred post with any regularity. So the majority are
silent on the issue, either way, implying that they might have an interest
and an opinion, but it's not strong enough to impel them to "speak". (arf)
The usual solutions are a related community [techwrl-OT] list (allowing
people to say "take it next door"), or a convention of labelling messages
within the single list.
Either one will work as well as people want it to, but will necessarily
suffer boundary situations where participants disagree on compliance,
thresholds (is this OT?), etc.
I like a second list because it provides a 'place' where people can let down
their hair, but in the context of a group with a common interest (technical
communication). That's why it doesn't work to simply say "take it to a list
where this is appropriate". The 'outlet' needs to be branded and advertised,
so that people do get the feeling that it's the 'lounge' just outside the
main auditorium, and not some undefined place of banishment in another
state. That is, there's less resistance to "take it next door" when "next
door" is perceived to exist, and can be expected to have many of the same
interesting folks attending.
I like one list but with a labelling convention because ... well, multiple
lists (even just two) can turn into ghettos.
Somebody mentioned a standards list as an example of an ideal mailing list.
Rigidly on-topic, no sense of community. Dry as unbuttered toast. Postings
numbered in the dozens, yearly. That member, and those who agree, would
prefer that techwr-l list posts be outnumbered by the daily advertising
posts. I'd be one of the people who don't find that attractive.
So, what prevents something like subject-line labelling from working? Lack
of will? Partly.
Whose will? Well, participants, to be sure, but list-owner too. Any kind of
change takes some steering until it becomes the norm. The old saw is that it
takes 20 days of repetition for a pattern to become habit. Well, whose
twenty days? :-)
Regarding community, and conversation about off-topic stuff: has anybody
ever been to a conference or to regular User Group meetings? How about
Chamber of Commerce, Rotarians, Optimists, etc.? There's an agenda, but
there's also a socializing space and time. Both are necessary for ongoing
community.
I figure I took a chance by writing this and by labelling it [OT]. The
best-case scenario is that it would prompt a discussion of how to
communicate with disparate Technical Communicators (some of whom are
managers and don't actually write user docs anymore). The worst-case
scenario is that this post would be construed as a back-breaking straw, and
I'd be slapped in the face and banished.
But do note that nobody actually _read_ this post who wasn't either:
- interested in the topic (or what I might have to say)
- interested in having something to be offended about.
All of those others who lacked time or interest simply stayed away, having
seen [OT] in the subject.
Well... except for those who get digest and have to scroll past this dreck.
Sorry.
Who does have a problem with a labelling convention like "[OT]"?
Perhaps it would be more attractive if it had additional functionality,
which is to say additional categories like [TOOLS], [PROCESS], [USAGE] or
[TECHNIQUE], [BIZ], [MISC]... other suggestions?
I estimate it would be most workable to have a small, but well-conceived set
of labels. Too many will confuse people. Too few won't do the job. Maybe a
weekly or monthly summary post (automated?) would keep everyone on track.
The idea is that the busy reader can skip whole categories without needing
to delve into actual messages. In fact, the busy reader could set their
e-mail reader to filter out whole topics, allowing only the topics that
interest them to reach their Inbox.
Is this worth a Techwr-l POLL?
Kevin
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer without copying or disclosing it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word features support for every major Help
format plus PDF, HTML and more. Flexible, precise, and efficient content
delivery. Try it today! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include single source authoring, team authoring,
Web-based technology, and PDF output. http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- infoinfocus -dot- com -dot-
